Uruguay are a comparable example because - and this is crucial - the last time England won anything is also ancient history. But of course recent history as a gauge of the contemporary strength of national teams comes into it - that is plainly fucking obvious.
I'm just following your arguments from the other day
I'm not sure why you're getting so angry about all this by the way.
Yet they don't. Spain is arguably as strong as England, yet Spanish players are quite common outside of Spain. The German and Italian domestic leagues are also strong - yet their players are often found playing overseas.
English players are not particularly predisposed, for whatever reason, to playing abroad.
Come on, you know what you've written here is bollocks. Look, I live in Spain, I can tell you the high regard they hold English players and the English national team over here. With Mourinho coming to Madrid, Marca is full of daily stories about their chances of signing English players (Gerrard, Lampard, Cole). If England players don't play abroad, it's because they don't want to.
Come on, you are being silly now - it is hardly controversial to point out that English football underachieves in developing players. It is and has been for a very long time an acknowledged truth throughout football - so why do so many English fans feel the need to delude themselves otherwise?
Trouble is, I've got fuck all idea what you mean by "underachievement" here.
But Spain have won two major comps, including the last European championships, and France won the world cup in 98 and reached the last final! Dear fuck man.
And? Spain have got a great team right now. But prior to winning the last European Championship, their international record was worse than ours. Any team can develop a good crop of players once in a while, just like the French did in '98 (a group of players they've lived off until this tournament). Their international record is comparable to ours.
Oh so is football magic then? Are Brasilians genetically predisposed to being great footballers? You knob. Clearly, Brasilian football culture is conducive to producing talent, despite its economic condition and the chaotic state of the domestic game, and this is in large part down to the way football is played, and consequentially the way players are developed, at grassroot level.
What are you arguing? That England is a lot better than their record and its down to bad luck? That despite all the evidence to the contrary England in fact does produce enough quality for a nation of its size, infrastructure and economic position? That black is white? Frankly, you are a typical England supporter - deluded and prone to knee-jerk reaction when faced with any criticism, even if you know it is right.
Why are you getting so angry? You're such a contradictory little ball of emotions that I don't know what I'm supposed to arguing about. On the one hand, I'm supposed to have an arrogant sense of entitlement, but if I say that I'm relatively satisfied with getting to the latter stages of tournaments and think that's ok for a nation like ours, I'm deluded?
Brazil are the most successful team in the history of world football. So apparently infrastructure and economic position has sod all to do with whatever makes a country a footballing super power. England are just one among some hundred and fifty nations that play football, and we're relatively good at it. Not the best in the world, but relatively good at it?
